Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1887-11-03
That They Must Prepare to Stand Before
Higher Court of JuStiCe-Fate Staring
Them in the FaCe-0ffCialS Hold
II Just RetributiOn.
THEY GAZE ON DEATH DEFIANT
Refuse to Sign Petition for Clemoncy--
Thousands ThrOng to See the Prisoners
Liuggs Mirth Rings Harshly
Through the Solemn
Prison Halls.

y uS'lCC bcSdu lSthAuS ulS Op'hioil III bhS
Anarchist cases mt > minutes past II, and
finished IT with the announcement Of the
denial of the writ at 1910. The following
is the text of the opinion:
supreme Court Ofthe United States, Oc-
tOber term, 1887. ES parte, in the matter
OF August Spies, Michael Schwab, Oscar
Neebe, Samuel Fielden, Albert K. Par
sons, George Engel, Adolph Fisher and
Louis Lingg, petitioners. Application for
the allowance OF u writ Of error to the Su-
preme Court OF the State of Illinois.
Mr.. Chief Justice Waite delivered the
opinion of the Court.
when, as in this case, application is
made to us on the suggestion of one Of OuT
number, to whom a similar application had
been previously addressed, for the allow
auce of writ of error to the highest Court
ofthe State, under section 500 of the Revised
Statutes, it is our duty to ascertain not only
whether any question renewable here was
made and decided in the proper court be-
low, but whether it is of character to
Justify US in bringing the judgement here
for examination. In our opinion the
writ ought to be allowed by the court, il
it appear from the face of the record, that
the decision OF the federal question, which
is complained OF, was so plainly right as
not to require argument, and especially II
it is in accordance with our own well con-
sidered judgements in similar cases. That
il in effect what was done in Twitchell vs..
the Commonwealth 4 w III 323) when the
writ was refused because the questions
presented by the record were no longer
subjects ofdiscussion, although if they had
been in the opinion OF the court open it
would have been allowed.
when under section ) of our rule g. q
motion to affirm is united with motion tn
dismiss for want of jurisdiction, the prIc-
tice has been to grant the motion to affirm
when the question on whlcn our
Jurisdiction depends was so mauitestly
decided right, that the case ought not to
be held for further argument Arrow
smith vs. HOrmOning, llS, United States
lgl. 1875; Church vs. Kelsey III, United
States 2S2) The propriety of adopting a
similar rule upon motions in Opeu court
for the allowance of q writ Is lppa 'ent, tor
certainly we would not he Justified in
sending ont writ TO briug mp tor review
Judgment of the highest court Ot State,
when it is apparent on the face Of the
record that il would be our duty 10 grant
n motion ~ soon rs II was made in proper
form. In the present case we have had
the benefit OF argument in support Of the
anplication, and while counsel have not
deemed it their duty to 20 fully into the
merits OF the questions involved, they
have shown distinctly what the de-
cisiOns were, Ot which they com
plain and how the questions
arose In this way we are
able to determine rs a Court in session
whether the errors alleged are such as tC
Justify us in bringing the case here tor re-
view. We proceed then TO consider wha'
the uuestiOns are in which, If ii exists at
all. our jurisdiction depends. The par
| ticular provisions of the Constitution OF
the United States on which counsel rely
are found in Articles w., v, VI. and
", Section /, OF the Amendments, ~
| follows:
ARTICLE IV.-The right OF the people
TO he secure in their persons, houses,
papers and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures shall not be violated
Article V.-NO person shall be com
pelled i'm any criminal case to he wit
ness against himself, nor be deprived OF
life, liberty or property without
DUE PROCESS OF LAW.
ARTICLE VI. In all criminal prOsecu'
tions the accused shall enjoy the right to
speedy and public trial by an impartial
! inry of the State and District wherein The
crime shall have been committed, which
district shall have been previously ascer
tanned by law.
| ARTICLE ", SECTION No State
shall make or enforce any law, which shai
abri6ge the privileges or immunitles o
citizens of the United States, nor shall any
State deprive any person Of life, liberty ol
property without due process Of law.
| 6That the first ten articles OF the amend
ment were not intended to limit the powers
of the State governments IN re-
| spect to their own citizens,
but to operate on the Ma
tional Government alone was decided
more than half century ago, and that de-
cision has been steadily adhered to since
| Barron VS.. Baltimore, Peters. 2l3, 241
livingston vs.. Moore, idem 469, So; Fox
i I0l. Smith
Maryland, IS Howe Il, Is; Withers VS..
Buckley, - Howe, ~, 81; Pervear Ts. Ihe
Commonwealth, 3 Wall 475, 499; Twltch'
Ell ys. The Commonwealth, Howe
32I. 32S; Justices vs. Murray, Wall ga,
| 27s. Edwards vs. Elliott, 81 Wall. 532,
557: Walker vs. San Venet, 81 i. 5. 80
limited States vs. Cruikshank, 92 U. )
80 $50; Pearson vs.. Yerndall, % U. ),
294 296; Davidson VS.. New Orleans, 96
II. s. 81, lOl; Kelly vs.. Pittsburg, 1O4 L.
: SO: Prosser VS.. Illinois, 1l6 U. ). 252,
265. Il was eontended, however, IN argu'
ment, that though originally the first ten
amendments there adopted as limitations
ON Federal power, yet in so far as they sc,
cure and recognize fundamental rights and
common law rights of man, they make
them privileges and immunities OF man as
a citizen of the United States and cannot
now be abridged by State under tht
Fourteenth amendment. In other words
while the ten amendments as limitations
on power only apply TO the Federal gov
eminent and not to the States, yet
| in so far as they declare
or recognize the rights Of persons, these
| rights are theirs IS citigens Of the United
States, and the fourteenth amendment a:
to such rights limits State power as the tel
amendments had limited Federal power.
at is also e0ptended that the provision